Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill - Standing Committee B

[David Taylor in the Chair]

Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill

Clause 2 - Certification commissioner

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 229, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert
‘First and Deputy First Minister Acting jointly’.—[Lady Hermon.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

David Taylor: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 230, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
‘(1A)No appointment may be made under subsection (1) above without the approval of the First and Deputy First Minister acting jointly.’.
No. 41, in clause 24, page 13, line 18, at end add—
‘(2)The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section until he has made an order under section 2(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (c. 1) (ending suspension).’.

Lady Hermon: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. We are unanimously delighted to sit under your chairmanship this afternoon, and we welcome you to this exciting Committee. It is exciting because this is the first time that we have been able to put the Minister on his mettle in defending, line by line, the clauses of this appalling legislation. I am sorry that he finds himself a little exasperated because we have made such little progress, but this is all in the interests of better justice in Northern Ireland. I will push amendments Nos. 229 and 230 to Divisions, because it is enormously important that he and the Government are consistent in their policy in Northern Ireland.
I find the Minister’s justification for refusing to accept the amendments extraordinary. I say that because he referred to at least two different sets of arguments. One is that this is an excepted matter. The term “excepted” is born out of the legislation that brought about Northern Ireland—the Government of Ireland Act 1920, under which there are reserved matters at Westminster, devolved matters and excepted matters. Excepted matters are limited; they include defence and taxation.
The Minister sought to persuade the Committee that because the certification commissioner will deal with those who might have committed acts of terrorism, this is an excepted matter. That cannot be the case and I need him to explain the policy to us. I  again refer him to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, which was taken through the House by his Government and his colleagues. Section 2 says that the
“First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly”
may perform a certain function. Sections 3 and 4 include exactly the same provision in relation to other functions.
In the Committee that considered that legislation, I asked the Northern Ireland Office Minister responsible for those matters the question this Minister has posed today: if the First and Deputy First Ministers do not agree, one would have a veto over progress, so what would happen? The Northern Ireland Office Minister then responsible for those matters replied:
“Our stock answer would be that we are not planning for failure”.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 29 January 2002; c. 68.]
At every juncture, the Government wrote it into the legislation that the First and Deputy First Ministers must act jointly on a range of judicial appointments. Those judges will deal with terrorist offences—for example, where Diplock courts are involved. What do such courts deal with apart from those who are accused of the most heinous crimes, which are scheduled offences? They deal with terrorism. The certification commissioner can be in no different category.
The Minister needs to explain why, in 2002, Government policy was that the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly should have such a significant role in judicial matters, but that, on this occasion, the situation involving the certification commissioner, who will sit only in Northern Ireland and will have an exclusively Northern Ireland remit, is different. Why do the Government wish to reject this amendment? Are they preparing for failure in restoring the institutions?

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 17.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 231, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
‘(1A)Before making any appointment under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State must consult—
(a)the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission,
(b)the Victims Commissioner and
(c)the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.’.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 154, in schedule 1, page 15, line 28, leave out ‘is granted’ and insert ‘applies for’.
Amendment No. 155, in schedule 1, page 15, line 28, at end insert—
‘(1A)The commissioner shall consult, and have regard to the views of, the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner about arrangements to be made in fulfilling his duties under sub-paragraph (1).’.
Amendment No. 156, in schedule 1, page 15, line 28, at end insert—
‘(1A)It is the duty of the commissioner to secure that appropriate arrangements are made—
(a)to allow representations from victims about the case of each person who applies for a certificate of eligibility;
(b)to have regard to the views of victims about the case of each person who applied for a certificate of eligibility;
(c)to give the victims the reasons for his decision to grant or refuse a certificate of eligibility in every case.’.
Amendment No. 237, in schedule 1, page 15, line 33, leave out ‘a’ and insert ‘an unacceptable’.
Amendment No. 157, in schedule 1, page 15, line 33, at end insert—
‘(4)Before deciding whether to withhold any information on the grounds referred to in sub-paragraph (3) the commissioner must consult, and have the agreement of, the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner.’.
Amendment No. 52, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e)that the Victim Impact Assessment Panel has reported to the Commissioner that the issuing of a certificate to the applicant will not cause long-term alarm or distress to the victims of the offences specified in the application.’.
Amendment No. 53, in clause 3, page 3, line 17, at end add—
‘“Victim Impact Assessment Panel” means a body of persons with relevant professional qualifications established by the Secretary of State to establish the impact of the offences and the consequences of the provisions of this Act on victims.’.
Amendment No. 59, in clause 4, page 3, line 26, after ‘State’, insert
‘, the victims of the offences stated in the application’.
Amendment No. 14, in clause 4, page 3, line 27, at end insert
‘, following which victims and victims’ families shall be notified.
(4A)Following notification under subsection (4), the Secretary of State shall publish the names of applicants in such manner as he sees fit.’.
Amendment No. 118, in clause 4, page 3, line 27, at end insert—
‘(4A)The commissioner must inform the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner of the application.’.
Amendment No. 119, in clause 4, page 3, line 29, at end insert—
‘(5A)The Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner may make representations to the commissioner about the application.’.
Amendment No. 64, in clause 6, page 5, line 10, after ‘inform’, insert ‘the victims and’.
Amendment No. 126, in clause 6, page 5, line 10, at end insert
‘and
(c)inform the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner.’.
Amendment No. 246, in clause 11, page 7, line 18, leave out from ‘person’ to end of line 19 and insert—
‘(b)to the appeals commissioners;
(c)to the victim, where identifiable and practicable;
(d)to the public in such manner as the Secretary of State sees fit.’.
Amendment No. 34, in clause 11, page 7, line 18, leave out ‘and’.
Amendment No. 35, in clause 11, page 7, line 19, at end insert
‘and
(c)to the victim or the victim’s next of kin.’.
Amendment No. 138, in clause 11, page 7, line 19, at end insert—
‘(c)the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner; and
(d)any other such persons as the Secretary of State believes appropriate.’.
Amendment No. 247, in clause 11, page 7, line 26, leave out from ‘person’ to end of line 27 and insert—
‘(b)to the Secretary of State;
(c)to the victim, where identifiable and practicable; and
(d)to the public in such manner as the Secretary of State sees fit.’.
Amendment No. 36, in clause 11, page 7, line 26, leave out ‘and’.
Amendment No. 37, in clause 11, page 7, line 27, at end insert
‘and
(c)to the victim or the victim’s next of kin.’.
Amendment No. 88, in clause 11, page 7, line 27, at end insert
‘and
(c)to the victims.’.
Amendment No. 139, in clause 11, page 7, line 27, at end insert—
‘(c)to the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner, and
(d)to any other such persons as they believe appropriate.’.
Amendment No. 140, in clause 12, page 8, line 6, at end insert—
‘(2A)The Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner may appeal to the appeals commissioner against the grant of a certificate of eligibility.’.
Amendment No. 38, in clause 12, page 8, line 8, at end add—
‘(4)A victim, or his family, may appeal to the appeals commissioners against the grant of a certificate of eligibility.’.
New clause 3—Victims’ rights and entitlements—eligibility certificates—
‘In determining whether an applicant for an eligibility certificate meets the conditions set out in section 3 above, the commissioner shall give an opportunity for a victim, or the family of a victim, to make representations to him.’.
New clause 4—Victims’ rights and entitlements—special tribunals—
‘(1)Before the Special Tribunal established under section 8 sentences an applicant who pleads guilty or is found guilty of an offence, it shall give an opportunity for a victim, or the family of a victim, to make representations to it.
(2)In passing sentence, the Special Tribunal shall take into account any representations made to it under subsection (1).’.
New clause 6—Victims’ applications—
‘(1)Six months after the coming into force of this Act, a victim, or the family of a victim, may apply to the Special Tribunal to try a person who meets the conditions set out in section 3(2) but who has not made an application for a certificate of eligibility.
(2)If an application is made under subsection (1), the Special Tribunal shall proceed to try the case as though the offender held a certificate of eligibility, in accordance with the provisions of section 8(3).
(3)A person found guilty of an offence by the Special Tribunal under the provisions of this section shall, if and when apprehended, serve the sentence set by the Special Tribunal.’.

Lady Hermon: The lead amendment is very important. It is important to give a voice to the victims in Northern Ireland. As drafted, this particularly offensive legislation will not give victims a voice and will not allow the truth to be heard. Amendment No. 231 would impose an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult with certain individuals or organisations before the appointment of the certification commissioner. Two key principles should be added: respect for human rights and respect for the views and suffering of victims. The Bill does not acknowledge either.
Other Members will want to speak to their amendments, so I will concentrate on amendment No. 231. Before the appointment of the certification commissioner, the Secretary of State should consult with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Northern Ireland victims commissioner and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
In this morning’s debate, the Minister touched on consultation with—and, I hope, support from—stakeholders. That is a ghastly word. Although pressed on the matter, he refused to identify exactly who the stakeholders would be. I would like him to say at the outset this afternoon that the Government will accept amendment No. 231. That would be meaningful to the victims in Northern Ireland and important in respect of human rights.
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has only recently been reconstituted. That important statutory body was set up by the Belfast agreement and, again, put in place by this Government and given a particular role and remit. The Government are consulting on increasing the powers of the commission because they, and the Minister in his capacity as Minister responsible for criminal justice, have rightly said how fundamental and central human rights are in Northern Ireland and to every aspect of Government business.
Given the importance placed by the Minister and the Secretary of State on how good and worthy the new commission is, and all the fine words when the appointments were announced, I would like the Minister to say that he will offer more than just fine words—that is, he will put those fine words into effect by giving formal statutory recognition to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and ensuring that the Secretary of State consults before any certification commissioner is appointed.
Likewise, the Secretary of State should be obliged to consult with the newly appointed Northern Ireland victims commissioner. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield was the first such commissioner; his remit was time-limited. When he completed his report, which is entitled “We  Will Remember Them”, that was the end of his term of duty, as it is called. I am pleased to say that, recently, a Royal Ulster Constabulary widow, a woman of considerable experience and high reputation who is held in high respect and regard, has been appointed as the—albeit interim, although I hope long-term—victims commissioner.
I shall take a moment to reflect on the Government policy announced by the Lord Chancellor, who is obviously a prominent figure. I am sure the Minister is familiar with the document issued by the Lord Chancellor in September, which is not that long ago. That consultation paper was about giving victims—particularly victims of murder and manslaughter—a voice. The Lord Chancellor said that victims should have a voice, and this year the Government made a commitment in their manifesto to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system.
I would like the Minister to match his words and those of the Government at the time of the appointment of Northern Ireland’s victims commissioner. Instead of glowing words and praise, that individual should be given formal recognition in the Bill. Before the certification commissioner is appointed, the victims commissioner should be satisfied in that respect and formally recognised as a stakeholder in the appointment process.
I hope we all have the highest confidence in the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland; as the MP for North Down, I do. Given the very sensitive nature of the information that will have to be presented to the certification commissioner—information about the most heinous crimes that have taken place in Northern Ireland over 20 or 30 years—I, and other Committee members, I am sure, would be reassured if the Secretary of State had a positive duty to consult the PSNI’s Chief Constable. He, or perhaps she in future years, should be content and pleased with the appointment of the certification commissioner.
Frankly, I see no objection that the Minister could put to the amendment. I hope to have his support and that of all Committee members, right-thinking or not-thinking. I hope, too, that all have tuned in to this afternoon’s debate and will support amendment No. 231.

Laurence Robertson: I welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Taylor. I have worked with you before. It was a privilege to do so then, and it is today.
I shall go through the amendments briefly. Amendment No. 154 would remove “is granted” and insert “applies for”, when referring to a certificate of eligibility. As the Minister knows, the Bill has caused hurt, heartache, anxiety and fear in Northern Ireland. The words are disputed, but it proposes an effective amnesty for people who have committed the most awful crimes, some of which were described movingly on Second Reading, especially by the hon. Members for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).
It is bad enough that those found guilty of such offences will not even have to serve a single day in prison. They will not even have to carry out anything such as community service. Nor will they even have to appear in court. Indeed, there will not be a court. Nor will they even have to apply for a certificate of freedom themselves; someone else can do that for them. Those people will not touch the criminal justice system, but will be dealt with at arm’s length.
I am worried about the victims and their relatives, several of whom have travelled to the House of Commons to meet the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and many others, including some members of the Committee. They are hurt and angry. If they cannot obtain justice under the Bill—some of us will try to amend it so that they obtain a degree of justice—we should at the very least keep them informed of what is going on. Lack of knowledge of what is happening can so often make matters worse for the victims.
We need to ensure that the victims are involved in the process, and that means involvement from the start. They should be given information when an application is made for a certificate, not when that certificate is granted. If they are not given the information until the certificate is granted, they will, in effect, have been excluded from the entire process. The victims might not want to become involved or to use the information at all, but the amendment would give them the opportunity to become involved at the start, or part way through the process if they so wish. It is consistent with amendments that other hon. Members have tabled, which involve the Northern Ireland victims and human rights commissioners.
Amendment No. 155 would require the commissioner to consult
“and have regard to the view of the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner about arrangements to be made in fulfilling his duties under sub-paragraph (1)”,
which refers to giving information to victims. Amendment No. 156 would allow representations from victims to be made about
“the case of each person who applies for a certificate”
and regard to be paid to those views. Victims would also be given the reasons for granting or refusing to grant a certificate in every case.
Amendment No. 118 would require the commissioner to inform the victims commissioner of the application. Amendment No. 119 would allow for the victims commissioner to make representations to the commissioner about each application. Amendment No. 126 would require the victims commissioner to be informed if a certificate were cancelled. Under the Bill, the defendant and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland are required to be notified, but victims are not. The amendment would put the victims at the heart of the process.
Amendment No. 138 would require the victims commissioner and anyone else the Secretary of State considered appropriate to be informed of the suspension of a licence. Amendment No. 139 is a similar proposal. Amendment No. 140 would give the right of appeal to the victims commissioner against the  refusal to award or against the cancellation of a licence. The Bill gives the right of appeal to the person concerned in the case of an application being refused or a licence revoked, and to the Secretary of State against the granting of a licence. Again, the victim is missing from the process. Our amendment attempts to put the victim at the heart of the process and to begin to relieve their pain.

Mark Durkan: One of the worst aspects of the Bill is that victims have had no voice in it. I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), which, among others, would at least add the newly appointed office of victims commissioner to the consultation on the appointment of the certification commissioner.
Neither victims nor their representatives have been consulted on the proposed legislation, yet Ministers and the Secretary of State recognise that it has a real impact on victims. Indeed, I think that the Northern Ireland Office has breached its own equality scheme by failing to consult. The Bill has an impact on victims; its impact is not just on those who will avail themselves of it to get certificates, or those who will have their cases dealt with by the tribunals.
The reality is that victims are—disproportionately—older, Catholic and nationalist. On that basis, there should have been an equality impact assessment. However, that did not happen and, as I understand it, the equality screening exercise that took place considered the equality implications only for the people who would be applying.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to put on the record the fact that the vast majority of victims—although they may have been nationalist and from a particular community—were murdered by the IRA?

Mark Durkan: I have no problem with that. I have said many times in the past that more Catholics were killed by the IRA than were killed by other groups. However, victims as a whole are disproportionately Catholic, nationalist and older people. It is relevant to use those three categories in respect of the groups and interests to be considered under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in terms of the equality impact assessment and relevant equality schemes.
It seems that in its equality screening the Northern Ireland Office only considered the people who might apply to use the scheme, as though the scheme does not have an impact on victims. Even though the Ministers who have presented the Bill all say that they know that it does have an impact on victims—they have pleaded that they understand that and are trying to take it into account in every way possible—and even though the supposed source of the measure, the 2003 Hillsborough document, said that there would be proper consideration for victims, we can see that that has not happened. The legal requirement of an equality impact assessment has been failed. An existing law and the Good Friday agreement have been broken in the presentation of this Bill, which we are told flows from that agreement, because the commitments in equality impact assessments and  equality schemes stem directly from the agreement. The Bill is another example of the Good Friday agreement being breached.
Worse than all that, victims remain voiceless in the process set out in the Bill, as the hon. Members for North Down and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said. Victims have no say in the process. That is why we tabled amendment No. 154, to which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury has already spoken. The amendment obliges the certification commissioner to make arrangements for informing victims from the moment of application, not just from the moment that a decision is taken to grant the application. It is wrong that schedule 1 only envisages information being given to applicants after the decision on the application has been taken. That is closing the door after the horse has bolted.
Amendment No. 237 is designed to qualify paragraph 5(3) of schedule 1. Sub-paragraph (3) obliges the certification commissioner to withhold information from a victim where there is “a danger” to the safety of any person. We have grave difficulties with any limit being placed on giving information to victims, but if there is to be one, it should be based on the concept of “an unacceptable danger”. There might often be some danger in naming individuals, but that danger may well be slight and it has to be counter-balanced by the public need to know.
Those principles are well accepted in criminal trials, where people are charged and named. That is deemed acceptable in the wider interest of justice. The same principles should apply in the scheme, not least because the people involved will be voluntarily applying for a certificate under the legislation—that will be their choice. If they wish to preserve their anonymity, they can simply not apply for a certificate, take their chances in the ordinary criminal justice system, and see whether they are charged and how things proceed.
Other hon. Members have tabled amendments to clauses 4 and 6 that support the victim’s right to know, and we are generally supportive of them. We have tabled similar amendments, such as amendments Nos. 239 and 240, which oblige the notification of others such as the Chief Constable, the public and the police ombudsman, but they have been grouped elsewhere as they are arguably broader in scope than the amendments in the present group. Others of our amendments have been selected in this group, such as amendments Nos. 246 and 247, which oblige the Secretary of State to give notice of the suspension of a licence and the reasons for it to the victim and the public; they also oblige the appeals commissioners, to whom an appeal can be brought regarding the suspension of a licence, to give notice of the suspension and the reasons for it to the public. The amendments are designed simply to give reassurance to victims that they will not be the last to know, as they were in respect of this legislation.

Lorely Burt: I also welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Taylor.
I shall speak to amendments Nos. 59, 64, 52, 53 and 88. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit öpik) and I are broadly in favour of all the amendments in this group and do not intend to press our own this afternoon. I do not intend to speak separately to amendment No. 88, as it is related to amendments Nos. 59 and 64. I will speak separately to amendments Nos. 52 and 53, then move on to amendments Nos. 59 and 64.
The purpose of amendment Nos. 52 and 53 is to tie the interests of the victims more closely into the provisions of the Bill. No one should underestimate the terrible pain and distress that many people in Northern Ireland have suffered. We have a responsibility to ensure that the Bill does not cause them more sorrow and anguish than they have already had to endure. It is a rare terrorist offence in Northern Ireland that affects only one person; usually, many people are touched by it—not only those who have been injured, both psychologically and physically, but their friends and families. Indeed, a whole community can be devastated by a single such event, and everyone who is affected by an event should be considered a victim of it.
The idea behind the amendments is simple. If they were accepted, the Government would establish a victim impact assessment panel made up of experts such as psychologists, social workers and police liaison officers, who would meet the victims of offences to assess the effects of those offences and the potential effect of the Bill’s provisions. The victims of violence in Northern Ireland have suffered enough and they should not have to suffer again.
Amendments Nos. 59 and 64 are probing. In paragraph 5(1) of schedule 1, there is a duty on the certification commissioner
“to secure that appropriate arrangements are made for giving information to victims about the case of each person who is granted a certificate of eligibility.”
Although we believe that it is up to the commissioner to decide how he or she will inform victims of progress on cases that relate to their situation, we want to make absolutely sure that the information is given to them promptly so that there is no chance of their finding out about events via the press when they should be told about them by other means. That is why there should be express provision in the Bill for the certification commissioner to inform victims at the same time as he informs the Secretary of State and other officials, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, of the state of a case.

Sammy Wilson: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Taylor, and I hope that you will show some understanding. I, a parliamentary apprentice, have been asked to take the lead on a series of amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East, even though I might not have his eloquence or expertise.
I hope that this series of amendments will find greater acceptance among Government Members than earlier ones have. One thing has become fairly clear  during our discussions on Tuesday and this morning. Even some Labour Members—three or four of them, although I do not have their names written down—have expressed the belief that the Bill will help to bring about “closure”, or to “draw a line under” all the trauma experienced by victims. Those are unfortunate phrases, and I do not like that language, but it is the language that they used. A common theme of today’s amendments—whether tabled by the SDLP, the hon. Member for North Down, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats—is that they are all designed to help to deal with victims’ concerns. As there seems to be a common view in Committee that we should aim to address the concerns and fears of victims, I hope that many of the amendments in this group will have an easier passage than other amendments have done.
Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 would ensure that a victim is informed when a certificate is applied for. That is essential. Many people do not know who committed the crime against their relative or themselves, or why they committed it, and so on. The amendments are designed to ensure that when someone applies for a certificate, the victims are at least notified of that. They could then find out the details, such as who made the application and what the crime was. If they wished—and if subsequent amendments are made—they could then find out more about that crime.
If Labour Members intend to ensure that there is some closure for victims, surely they accept that such amendments will better ensure that that happens. What could be worse than for a victim to find out months later that the perpetrator of the crime against them or their family has sneaked into the office, applied for and got a certificate, and, the matter having gone to a tribunal, got a licence?

David Hanson: The very scenario that the hon. Gentleman just outlined is covered by schedule 1, which deals with the certification commissioner. He will see that paragraph 5(1) states:
“It is the duty of the commissioner to secure that appropriate arrangements are made for giving information to victims about the case of each person who is granted a certificate”.
Once the certificate is granted, individual victims are informed of that; they are given the progress. Therefore, the circumstances that he outlined will not occur.

Sammy Wilson: I thank the Minister for that point, because it brings me on to later amendments.
I will jump to one of the other proposals, new clause 2. It is one thing to say that the victim will be informed after the event—after the certificate has been given—but our proposals seek to ensure that when the certificate has been applied for, even at that stage, the victim has the opportunity to make representations. They cannot know about things and cannot avail themselves of that opportunity—if new clause 2 is accepted—if they do not know in the first place that the certificate has been applied for.

David Taylor: Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman may be referring to new clause 3.

Sammy Wilson: I am sorry, I meant new clause 3. I appreciate your drawing that to my attention, Mr. Taylor. As I said, I am an apprentice on these matters and I got lost.

Vernon Coaker: 1, 2, 3.

Sammy Wilson: My adding up was never very good.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 refer to either the suspension or the revocation of a licence and are also designed to ensure that victims are informed. If someone who has been granted a licence has misbehaved in some way and has had the licence suspended or is to have it taken away altogether, the victim should know that the person has misbehaved.

Jeremy Hunt: There is a crucial distinction between what the hon. Gentleman is outlining and the provisions in the Bill as drafted. What he is outlining would mean that victims would be informed before a certificate was granted whereas the Bill suggests that they would be informed only after one had been granted. Does he agree that the Minister must explain why he does not want victims to be able to make representations before? Is it because he does not want victims to be able to influence the certification process? If so, is that not a huge injustice to them?

Sammy Wilson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. When we examine the totality of this legislation, we see that is not designed to address the hurt of the victims. It is designed to address the demands of Sinn Fein and of republicans, who demanded the legislation in the first place. That is why there is a vacuum and no proactive role for the victims in the legislation.
New clause 3 sets out the requirement that where a certificate has been applied for there is an opportunity for the victim or their family to make representations, which relates to exactly the point made by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt). There would be a proactive role for the victim in highlighting before the certificate is applied for just how horrendous the crime was and in perhaps making representations on why a certificate should not be granted in a particular case.
New clause 4 refers to the victims’ role in the special tribunal. At present, the only role for the victim in the special tribunal is that they could, in certain circumstances, be summoned to give evidence that might or might not be designed to be helpful in getting a licence for the person who perpetrated the crime. There is no proactive role for the victim; they cannot go to the tribunal, face the guilty person and ask for their representations to be taken into account before a licence is granted. New clause 4 would give the victim that role. If we are talking about giving victims an opportunity to have closure, to have their story told and to face the person who perpetrated the crime, surely there can be no objection to the new clause. It fits in perfectly with what I heard Labour Members tell us on Tuesday was the reason why the Bill is essential, even though it is obnoxious and they vote for it  through gritted teeth. The Bill helps to move things on—another terrible phrase—in Northern Ireland, they say. If that is the purpose, the new clause is one practical way to achieve it.
New clause 6 is important because it gives an opportunity, especially when a victim knows the person who committed the crime that affected their family, as often happens in Northern Ireland. Under the Bill as it stands, there is no need for anyone to apply for a certificate within a certain time limit: they can sit there until they think that the police are about to catch up with them, or until their conscience—if they have one—catches up with them, or they decide to come forward for some other reason. New clause 6 would make it possible for the victim to take a proactive role in bringing closure by letting them demand that the tribunal try their case.
All the amendments and new clauses are reasonable. They should not jeopardise the Bill in any way, although Labour Members are concerned about that. They will address all the issues that other Committee members have raised so eloquently—perhaps more eloquently than I have done. I commend all the amendments and new clauses.

Peter Robinson: I join others in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Taylor. The Committee is in good hands and I hope that you will find, as your colleague Sir Nicholas will have found, that we are all well behaved. You should have no difficulty with us.
I should like to take a wider focus on this issue; in Committee we find ourselves getting so involved in technical issues that we sometimes lose the context of the Bill. We are dealing with a key provision. To be frank, if the Minister is not prepared to give on this issue, I have little hope that he will change anything in this Bill as it proceeds through the House; it will be left to others in another place to bring some sanity to the situation. If the Minister does not move on this issue, he will be in breach of undertakings given publicly by his Government in the past. I shall come to that in a moment.
I should also like to talk to Members on the other side of the Committee—at least, to those from the Government party. I listened to the debate in the Chamber on Second Reading; I even listened during earlier sittings of this Committee to Labour Members making remarks about the need for the Government to consider issues such as the victims and the exiles. Here is their chance. The amendments provide an opportunity for anybody who wants to stand up and be counted on the key issue of whether they are here to produce legislation for terrorists or whether they are prepared to consider victims. If they do not consider the amendments, they will be turning their back on the victims and siding with the terrorists. There is no other way to put it.
At our previous sitting, I was glad that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) urged the Minister to take account of issues relating to victims and to exiles. I remind the Minister that, when the Government eventually published their proposals about on-the-runs in April 2003, they said in the first paragraph that it would be sensible for them to show
“sensitivity to the position of victims.”
Where in any clause or schedule of the Bill is sensitivity shown to victims of terrorism? I suspect that the Minister will have difficulty in showing us.
Who are the victims? They are those who suffered at the hands of the very people who the Minister is attempting to allow to go through a quasi-farce of a judicial process and escape any consequences for their actions, other than having a mark against their name due to a conviction—they would not have to serve a day in prison. The victims are the people who for a long time have had to carry their grief and hurt in ways that have been expressed earlier.
I referred to two personal cases in the House, but I could refer to many more. The names of the sort of people who will benefit from the Bill were published in the newspapers recently, such as Charlie Caulfield who is being sought for the Enniskillen poppy day bombing. Let us think about all the victims who were left behind on that occasion. Rita O’Hare is wanted for questioning for the ambush of British soldiers. Some hon. Members will be aware of Evelyn Glenholmes. He is being sought for several IRA bombings in England in the 1980s. Michael Rogan was suspected of bombing the British Army headquarters in Lisburn during the ceasefire in 1996—the bombing that brought the ceasefire to an end. Michael Quinn managed, no doubt on a false passport, to get to Osnabrück in Germany and is believed to be responsible for the mortar attack. Those are the people that Labour Members are accommodating—I apologise; they are the people that the Government are accommodating—by the Bill. Those people have left victims behind, and those victims should receive some accommodation under the Bill.
The amendments were spoken to ably by my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). He said that he has difficulty in adding up. That worried me because, in his previous life, he was the head of economics at one of our leading grammar schools in Northern Ireland. Even to this day, he sets the economic papers for exams at A-level. We can imagine the difficulties that that would produce for him.
In speaking to amendments Nos. 14 and 34 to 38, and new clauses 3, 4 and 6, my hon. Friend explained that we were attempting to insert into the Bill various rights for victims, not something that might be bestowed on them by grace and favour or by a commissioner. By that, I mean that victims must have a right to know that an application has been submitted before certification takes place. They must have a right to make representations before an appeal and to the certification officer, and a right to have themselves heard when an appeal is held against a case when it  comes to a suspension or the revocation process. Indeed, they must have the right to make a case before a sentence is determined at the special tribunal.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said in the early days that he would test the absurd contradictions of the Bill. New clause 6 does that. It says, “Okay. The Government want to give the right to use the Bill to terrorists. Let us also allow victims to use it.” If the Government are saying that closure is a good thing, let us have closure for the victims. We time-limit the use of the certification process in another amendment, and new clause 6 does not make sense unless we look at that. People must apply within six months, after which the victims or their next of kin can apply to have a case heard if the police believe that they have sufficient evidence; then the person can be apprehended and if they decide not to go to court, they lose their rights. If the Government think that it is right to have court cases heard at the behest of a terrorist in absentia, victims’ cases should also be heard in absentia if we follow their logic.
I urge the Committee seriously to consider the victims. “Victim” is not a term that should used in passing to try to calm people down, by saying, “Oh yes, we are concerned about victims”, after which people go on to do what they were going to do in the first place. It is essential that provisions are included in the Bill to ensure that victims have rights too. If the Minister is not prepared to accept that, he has only one interest, which is to serve those with whom he or his colleagues did a deal in 2001 and 2003, namely the army council of the IRA.

David Taylor: The Committee will be aware that there are a large number of amendments in this group. It would help the Chair if Committee members who want a separate Division on any amendment, other than the lead amendment, informed me in good time before the end of this part of the debate.

David Hanson: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome you to the Chair this afternoon in what you will understand, because you will already have had a taste of it, is a difficult Bill, with some difficult issues being discussed.
I shall begin by explaining to my hon. Friends and Opposition Members what the Government are trying to do in relation to victims. I realise that some of these matters relate to later clauses and schedules—and I hope that you will bear with me patiently, Mr. Taylor—but given the flavour of the discussion, I want to refer to them.
My hon. Friends will be aware that, in terms of the certification commissioner and his or her responsibilities, and the special prosecutor and his or her responsibilities, the Government have been keen to include under paragraph 5 of schedule 1, and under paragraph 6 of schedule 6, specific responsibilities to ensure that once the certificate has been granted victims are kept informed about the progress of the certificate. The Government have ensured that once the individual who receives the certificate goes to a special tribunal, which we will deal with under later clauses, the special prosecutor who is appointed to  handle the case has a duty to maintain liaison with victims. Those two aspects have been placed in the Bill at the specific request of the ministerial team that has dealt with the Bill since May this year. I hope that hon. Members will reflect on that when we consider the schedules later in the Bill.
It will not have escaped Committee members’ notice—particularly those with Northern Ireland constituencies—that on 1 December this year, less than one week ago, Bertha McDougall took up her position as victims commissioner in Northern Ireland. That new Government appointment has been brought forward to help support, liaise with, work with and represent victims’ interests in the difficult matters before the Government today, and in the difficult matters of victims’ rights and responsibilities and the effect of the political peace process on victims. For those Committee members who do not know, Bertha McDougall is the widow of a former police officer who was murdered, and is a victim herself. That position is in place because the Government are keen to ensure that victims are at the heart of the political peace process, taking the situation forward.
I do not want, under any circumstances, Committee members to think that even though I cannot accept some of the amendments, the Government are not concerned about our rights and responsibilities to victims. There is the establishment of the victims commissioner, the two schedules and the effect in the Bill of giving victims a role in both the certification process and in the special tribunal. [Interruption.] I will come on to that point in a moment.
I will answer the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim. Once the certificate is granted there is, under paragraph 5 to schedule 1, an opportunity for the certification commissioner to keep the victim informed about the progress regarding the certificate, as there is under later schedules with regard to the special prosecutor.
Today’s debate has focused on two specific issues. The first is what consultation we undertake in the appointment of the certification commissioner in the first place. That relates to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down, which I will deal with in a moment. The second is what the victim’s involvement should be and what discussions they should have with Government and the state before the certificate is awarded. There are also the questions that come up regarding the victim impact statement in the tribunal. I will deal with all three issues in turn, to assist the Committee.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Lady would ensure that we consult three bodies—the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Human Rights Commission and the victims commissioner that has recently been established—before the certification commissioner is appointed. As I said, I want there to be a wide consensus on the certification commissioner and for him to have wide support when, in due course, he operates in this difficult and sensitive area.
I am grateful for the consideration that the hon. Lady has given, because the points that she raised are important. I would fully expect that following the  normal statutory appointment procedure that we must follow for this type of position, the Secretary of State will, as I have mentioned, discuss matters and ensure that there is consensus with a range of bodies. I am fairly confident that the Secretary of State will discuss the nature of the appointment with the individuals mentioned in the hon. Lady’s amendment at some point in time. The amendment would restrict matters and ensure that the Secretary of State had to consult just three bodies. I want wide consensus. The proposal restricts, rather than focuses on, the potential for consensus and discussion.

Tobias Ellwood: The Minister made that argument in a previous sitting: where somebody is stated, everybody else is excluded from being consulted. I do not believe that the argument works. If three organisations or people are labelled, it means that they must be consulted. It does not mean that we cannot consult anyone else; it means that there is a mandatory obligation to consult those three at least. If a victims feels denied and feels that they have not been able to get their message across, they can go at least to one of those three bodies, which they know will be obliged at some point to link in with the commissioner.

David Hanson: On this specific point, we are talking about the appointment of the commissioner. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down concerns who the Secretary of State consults—following the statutory appointment procedure that we must follow—in order for the certification commissioner to be appointed. Who has to be consulted?
The hon. Lady focused on three groups of people who must be consulted before the appointment of the certification commissioner is made. I believe that to list statutory consultees in this way will shut down the options for consultation, because it will place doubt over the possibility of consulting others. [Hon. Members: “How?”] That is my view. That is a judgment that I have had to make and the one that will be tested, if need be, by a Division on the amendment in due course.
In answer to the hon. Lady’s specific question, I have no doubt that the Chief Constable will be consulted, because the Chief Constable will have to be satisfied about the appointment in terms of security clearance. I do not wish to put that suggestion into legislation although that will be the effect of the discussion that we are having today.

Lady Hermon: The Minister has said that he is “fairly confident” that the Secretary of State will consult the Human Rights Commission and the victims commissioner, and perhaps the Chief Constable. What possible objection could there be to putting such a provision in the Bill? It should be added to it in black and white, so that we can all be entirely confident, instead of the Minister telling us that he is fairly confident.

David Hanson: If I accepted the amendment and we listed those three individuals and organisations, that will not necessarily exclude others, but it will raise a question about consultation with others and the validity of such consultations. I am trying to ensure that we have widespread consensus. Therefore, I am unable to agree to the hon. Lady’s amendment.
There has been discussion about amendments that seek information for victims at the point of application to the commissioner. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury mentioned that, as did other Members, and amendment No. 154 addresses it. I am keen for victims to be consulted and involved, as under paragraph 5 of schedule 1, once the certificate has been granted. However, some serious problems and issues would arise if we were to adopt the amendments that allowed victims to be involved in discussions before the certificate was granted. I hope that Members will reflect on this matter.
At the stage at which an application is made to the certification commissioner, the applicant need be neither suspected of, nor charged with, the offence. The applicant might just believe that there are grounds for an offence, and they will only get the certificate once the charge has been made. It would be wrong to publish information about an applicant that could put them in some danger. Furthermore, if information were provided to the public about an application, and information were further provided about whether a certificate was actually issued, knowledge would be made public about a person—perhaps even that they failed to achieve the certificate. As we come on to later clauses, Mr. Taylor, you will see that they restrict eligibility in respect of conditions for application to the scheme.
Let me paint a scenario. An individual applies to the certification commissioner for a certificate; if these amendments were accepted, the certification commissioner could tell a victim about that. There are two possible further scenarios. A victim might have been murdered by a paramilitary. If that were to become public knowledge, it could put the individual applying for the certificate in some danger; at present, such information regarding that crime might not be publicly known. Also, the application for a certificate might well ultimately be turned down. Under the eligibility criteria, the certificate can be turned down for any number of reasons; that is the case if the Bill remains in its current form. One of the reasons for turning it down might be that the individual was a member of a specified organisation, such as the Ulster Volunteer Force or the Loyalist Volunteer Force, or Continuity IRA or the Real IRA. Making that public knowledge could put that individual’s life at risk.
Regardless of what our feelings might be about the individuals involved in such cases, I do not wish there to be a situation whereby applications are made for certificates and information is put into the public domain before that certificate is granted, even though I understand why the hon. Member for Belfast, East and other Members wish victims to be informed. I believe that the time for victims to be involved is when  the certificate is granted, as under paragraph 5 of schedule 1, because at that stage the victim knows that an individual has been charged with a crime, has been granted a certificate and will enter the tribunal system. The victim will then be kept informed as to the progress of the case.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister says that when the certificate is granted, the person will have been charged. Is that entirely correct? Clause 3(2)(a)(i) states that one of the eligibility criteria is that members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
“have had since before 1st November 2005, reasonable grounds for suspecting the applicant to be guilty of an offence”.
I am not trying to trip the Minister up, but, in his view, is that the same as being charged?

David Hanson: Not necessarily. The point I am making, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept, is that at the time that the certificate is granted there are reasonable grounds for believing that an individual has committed an offence, or they have been charged in respect of that offence. At that stage, under schedule 1, the victim can be informed about progress on the case. When the case progresses to the special tribunal, which we will deal with under later clauses, the special prosecutor has a duty to keep the victim informed on the progress of the case, so at that stage the victim is informed about how the case is progressing. But at the stage before that—and that is the stage that the amendment addresses—the certification commissioner might not grant a certificate. For reasons that have been mentioned, an individual may believe that they are likely to be charged, but may not actually be charged with an offence.

Laurence Robertson: I am glad that we cleared that up. The Minister says that, at that point, there will be reasonable grounds for believing that a person has committed the offence. Surely if someone makes an application, he has reasonable grounds for believing that he committed the offence.

David Hanson: That is perfectly correct, but at that stage the police may not have sufficient information to charge the person—

Laurence Robertson: But we are not talking about being charged; I just said that.

David Taylor: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make an intervention, will he please do so properly?

David Hanson: I say to hon. Members that, when a person applies to the certification commissioner, in many cases charges will not have been brought. There may be grounds for arrest, but in some cases there may not even be that. The point is that applying to the certification commissioner is a separate procedure. In my assessment, it is important that the victim is informed when a certificate has been granted in relation to a specific offence or alleged offence. When the individual goes to court, it is important that the special prosecutor keeps the victim informed on how  the case is progressing, but the pre-certification procedure cannot justifiably involve the victims, for the range of reasons that I have outlined.

Jeremy Hunt: Can the Minister explain how it could possibly mitigate the deep sense of injustice felt by victims if the point when they are informed about the process is the point when a perpetrator is made immune from arrest?

David Hanson: If the certificate is granted, the individual will almost certainly progress to the second stage of the process, which is the special tribunal. It is important that victims are informed when an individual is granted the certificate, and it is important that that process be taken through to the special tribunal. Involving victims before the certification commissioner grants a certificate is fraught with difficulty for the reasons that I outlined.

Peter Robinson: It is, of course, entirely possible that when the Bill comes back from another place, conditions will have been included in clause 3, and that they might include the right of a commissioner to refuse a certificate because of torture or some other issue. If that were so, surely it would be right to allow victims the opportunity to put a case to the commissioner before a decision was taken, so that someone could say, “You shouldn’t allow a certificate in this case, because look what happened to my husband.” They might be able to argue a case with greater knowledge than anybody else.

David Hanson: I will not speculate on what might happen to amendments in another place. If any amendments are made, the Government will have to reflect on them and assess the legislation as a whole in light of them. Someone of the hon. Gentleman’s experience will know that any legislation has to secure the support of both Houses of Parliament. The end product, whenever it finally arrives, will be subject to consideration by both Houses, so I cannot speculate on what amendments may be made.

Sammy Wilson: Can the Minister go over the scenario that he painted? He said that a person might apply for a certificate, but that it might be wrong to inform the victim, because that person might never be found guilty, or a case against them might not proceed. I know that the Minister is clutching at straws, but why would the person have applied for a certificate in the first place if they did not feel that they were guilty of some crime?

David Hanson: It is possible that an individual might believe that they were in part responsible for an incident, but that the PSNI would not have an interest in that individual in respect of it.
I know that the examples are extreme, but the essence of this debate is whether a victim should be informed when the certificate is granted and follow through the system to the tribunal from that stage. Should the certification commissioner have a responsibility to make sure that victims are informed once the certificate is granted, through to prosecution, or should victims be informed before the certificate is  granted? Openly and honestly, the Government’s view is that victims should become involved when the certificate is granted because that, not the application for the scheme, is the start of the process.

Mark Hendrick: It is not unknown in the British legal system for certain people to try to take the rap for another person. If the police did not have information or proof that the person applying for a certificate was indeed the criminal or terrorist, such a thing could happen.

David Hanson: That is a very good example; later, we shall come to amendments in respect of those very points.

Sammy Wilson: It is not.

David Hanson: I say to the hon. Gentleman that the point made by my hon. Friend is important. For example, Committee members can think of several key figures in various circles who may or may not have been involved in incidents in the past. It may well be possible for an individual to say that they have committed a particular offence and for the police service to have no evidence of that. That individual could undertake to be the fall guy and take the rap; that is possible.
The key point is that the certificate is granted because the individual has been accepted to qualify for the scheme. At that stage, the victim should be informed, consulted and involved, as under schedule 1.

Tobias Ellwood: Can the Minister explain something? If somebody were in prison now for a crime that had been committed before 1998 and somebody else came forward and said, “I did it, not that person in prison” and was able somehow to link himself to that crime, would that expedite the release of the prisoner?

David Hanson: No, it would not. At the end of the day, it would be down to the police service to provide evidence to that effect. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) is making the point that an individual might come forward and say, “I was involved in an incident” when the police did not believe that they were, and that that individual could accept responsibility for certain things.

Peter Robinson: The Minister could help us if, difficult though it might be, he attempted to equate the procedures that he is asking the Committee to consider with real law as it stands. In the present circumstances, the person would be brought into a police station, questioned and charged. All that would be public knowledge; victims across the whole world would know that it was happening. Why is he attempting to protect these particular terrorists?

David Hanson: An individual is not always named at the time of their arrest. On many occasions, it is said in the public domain that, for example, two gentlemen have been brought in for questioning. Their names would not be brought into the public domain, although they would be if the men were charged and  taken to trial. The Government have put in specific legislation to ensure that the victim will be involved from when the certificate is granted until when the special tribunal becomes involved.

Lembit Öpik: I do not want to prolong the Minister’s agony, but I should like to ask a simple yes-no question. Do the Government intend to apply exactly the same conditions to all terrorist suspects? It is important that we get confirmation that the Government would be consistent on this issue, not only in Northern Ireland, but elsewhere. Otherwise, there will be no logic in what the Government are putting forward for Northern Ireland.

David Taylor: Order. We are not able to widen the debate beyond Northern Ireland.

Lembit Öpik: On a point of order, Mr. Taylor. This is an act of faith. I asked that question because, as I have said during previous sittings, there will be unintended consequences owing to the differential between the legislation in Northern Ireland and that applying elsewhere. If there are inconsistencies, although we might not be able to go further into the consequences now, we will have to investigate them to ensure that Northern Ireland terrorists cannot use them as a means of getting out of a bind there.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

David Hanson: Turning to the other amendments—

Laurence Robertson: This will be the final time that I intervene on this matter. When the applicant applies for a certificate, two conditions that must be met before it is granted are that he
“does not support a specified organisation”
and
“that he is not concerned or likely to be concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.
 Might not the victim be able to provide some useful evidence in that respect?

David Hanson: The certification commissioner has to make an assessment. Again, the objectivity of the test is meant to be the central point for the certification commissioner to consider. The victim might or might not have objective information relating to that, but the certification commissioner will have to determine the criteria based on the objectivity that we have in later clauses.
Let me try to reassure hon. Members that victims are very important in the process. That is why we have specifically allowed for victims in relation to the certification commissioner, assessment and the special tribunal, and why, from 1 December, the victims commissioner has been in place in Northern Ireland to represent the needs and interests of victims, as well as to work with individuals such as the potential certification commissioner on such issues.

Lady Hermon: I am sorry that the Minister seems so exasperated—

David Hanson: No, no.

Lady Hermon: I am sorry. The Minister’s body language indicates that he is exasperated, but I am glad to know he is not and that he is enjoying himself. If he is enjoying himself, perhaps he will explain what his ministerial colleague, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, means by this? Yesterday—so, very recently—under the heading “Hain pledges support to victims and witnesses of crime”, the Northern Ireland Office was still quoting a statement that the Secretary of State made on 20 July:
“Providing quality support to victims and witnesses is crucial if they are to be enabled to make an effective contribution to bringing perpetrators to justice.”
This Bill is not bringing perpetrators to justice; it is giving them an amnesty. If it is the articulated position of the Secretary of State that victims and witnesses are to be given a crucial role and to make an effective contribution towards bringing to justice those who are guilty of the most heinous crimes, why on earth is the Minister defending the position under which the victims, and perhaps witnesses, are written out until after the certificate is given?

David Hanson: First, may I assure the hon. Lady that I am not exasperated at all? I just talk with my hands. That is what I do, and it is nothing personal. As I have said to her and to all hon. Members, I am happy to stay here for as long as possible—until 4 o’clock on 15 December. The pace at which we debate the Bill is entirely in the hands of the Opposition, and I am relaxed about that. There is no exasperation at all. I flap my arms around; that is the nature of the business.
In response to the specific question, I can tell the hon. Lady that the Secretary of State and I regard victims and witnesses as being important in the process. Once a certificate is granted, when the tribunal occurs, the victims and the witnesses will have an opportunity to give evidence, if they are an appropriate person to do so, as part of that judicial process. I put that point to the Committee; that is where we are.
I am anxious to move on to respond to other points made during the debate. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle mentioned the equality impact assessment. He has raised the issue with me outside the Committee, and I agree that it is important. An equality screening exercise was undertaken by law. It examined and considered the impact on victims as well as on suspects and those who might be affected by the legislation. There was no evidence that certain groups are disproportionately affected, because there is no evidence to suggest that victims necessarily know which suspects are eligible or which offences they have committed. I recognise the point he made about the potential impact of this policy issue for the victims, but the Government’s assessment is that we have undertaken equality screening. We are satisfied that it has been done.

Mark Durkan: First, I thank the Minister for giving way. He referred to our private conversation about this matter. The answer that he has given now is different from the information that I was given previously. I was told that the impact assessment that was conducted considered only those who would be applying and that the judgment was made that that did not affect or impact on victims. Can the paper from the equality screening test be put in the Library of the House of Commons, so that we can satisfy ourselves whether victims were considered, to what degree and by whom?

David Hanson: I say to my hon. Friend that one reason that I mentioned our private conversation, even though it is not normal practice to put such things in the public domain, is that the advice at the time, when we discussed the matter with other Government Members, was as he understood it, but, on reflection and having investigated this matter—

Mark Durkan: The story changed.

David Hanson: No, it has not changed. Having investigated this matter—[Interruption.] No. There are occasions when we have discussions on which the Government are trying to be helpful. I answered the point in a private discussion, with officials present, as part of the briefing on the Bill that we gave to all political parties. Since then, officials have examined the situation that the hon. Gentleman raised and discovered that the equality assessment was undertaken. I am trying to correct the impression that was given. That is an attempt to be helpful, not disingenuous.
I will reflect on this issue, if I may, because I am not sure of the precedent on making equality exercises public. If it is possible, I will do what the hon. Gentleman asks.

Mark Durkan: Given the time it takes to reflect and to check such things out, and given that the story has changed as to whether the screening took account of victims, I would like to know when we might have the answer. I cannot for the life of me understand how any equality screening test took account of victims. Did that screening test take account of the fact that the victims, disproportionately, are Catholics, nationalists and older people?

David Hanson: Some Members cannot take yes for an answer. I have reflected on what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mark Durkan: I cannot take evasion for an answer.

David Hanson: I have reflected on what the hon. Gentleman said. Before consideration of the Bill commenced, I offered a private briefing to all political parties and we had a discussion. The hon. Gentleman asked a question; my officials and I gave an answer. On reflection, now that the Bill is before the House, and after checking what we said, we have found that the answer is a different one.
I have put the record straight and offered to reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s request for the screening test to be published. If there is a precedent to publish such statements, I undertake to do that, to write to the hon. Gentleman and Committee members, and to place a copy in the Library. I hope he can now take yes for an answer, because I am trying, as ever, to be helpful to him.
Finally, because we want to make progress, I shall deal with the amendment on victim impact statements at the special tribunal, which was spoken to by the hon. Member for East Antrim. What a fine apprentice he is. I am sure that during consideration of the Bill he will go from strength to strength when putting the Government under pressure on a range of issues.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of whether a victim impact statement should be introduced in a special tribunal. Again, there is an honest disagreement in the Committee about the fact that the special tribunal, under later clauses, is not a Crown court, as hon. Members would wish. When we deal with those later clauses, we will explore those matters in great detail. However, in a normal Crown court situation, a victim impact statement is not presented, so we are not proposing to introduce one for the special tribunal, because in all circumstances we are trying to replicate a Crown court under the special tribunal. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Peter Robinson: That is crazy. How can the Minister pray that in aid of his argument—the special tribunal is not the Crown court, but we are using the rules of the Crown court?

David Hanson: We are seeking as far as possible within the Bill to replicate normal Crown court procedures. [Interruption.] I am taking interventions from the Floor, Mr. Taylor.

David Taylor: Order. I want the Minister to deal with one intervention at a time. Will hon. Members indicate appropriately whether they wish to intervene?

David Hanson: As I said, we are trying to replicate as far as possible normal Crown court procedures, with certain parameters such as trial in absentia—a controversial matter that we will refer to at a later date. I cannot accept the amendment spoken to by the hon. Member for East Antrim because there is no victim impact statement in normal Crown court procedures. We shall debate such matters when we reach the clauses on the Crown court procedure.

Jeremy Hunt: Does the Minister not accept the fact that the fundamental difference between a Crown court and a special tribunal is that after the special tribunal there will be no punishment? That is why a victim impact assessment is vital.

David Hanson: I cannot accept that a victim impact statement at the time of the trial is an important element. However, the nature of the crime will be portrayed by the special prosecutor at the tribunal and  the impact of the crime on victims will be explored in great detail. A specific victim statement as set out in the amendment is not something that I can accept.
I have tried to answer the points that have been made. If I have missed any, I apologise. I shall conclude by saying what I said at the outset: the establishment last week of a victims commissioner by the Government, and the establishment under paragraph 5 of schedule 1 and paragraph 6 of schedule 6 of specific references to the role of the certification commissioner and the special tribunal, show that the Government are concerned about victims.
My rejection of the amendments is not to diminish that role, but to answer two specific points: on wide consultation, which I want, and on community acceptance of the certification commissioner. I do not want to preclude difficult areas that could be life threatening prior to the certificate being granted.
I urge the hon. Member for North Down to withdraw the amendment; if she does not do so, I shall urge my hon. Friends to reject it.

Lady Hermon: I can put the Minister out of his misery quickly by saying that, of course, I shall press amendment No. 231 to a Division. I could not possibly withdraw it, because his arguments are completely unconvincing.
The Minister bears a heavy burden of responsibility, but, given that he has responsibility for security, criminal justice and policing in Northern Ireland, I urge him to use his spare time to help him to fulfil his duties by ensuring that he has a better understanding of the legislation that was recently taken through the House by his predecessors. I draw his attention to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.

David Hanson: For the record, I am not the Minister with responsibility for policing in Northern Ireland.

Lady Hermon: I apologise to the Minister, who is quite right. He is not responsible for policing, but he does have responsibility for criminal justice. He has rejected our amendments, which were genuinely intended to be helpful. The Secretary of State should consult three important statutory bodies: the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the victims commissioner and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
Whether the Minister has responsibility for policing or not, I say to the Committee that, when recent legislation was taken through the House, it was the Government’s practice to include measures to enable formal consultation with the NIHRC and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland before similar appointments were made. I see no justification for his rejection of the amendments. He has not made a convincing argument to persuade me to withdraw the amendment, so I am forced to press it to a Division. I am sorry that he has not taken the opportunity to improve this ghastly legislation by making consultation—with just three bodies—compulsory.

Sammy Wilson: I, too, am deeply disappointed that the Minister has decided, despite what has been said, to oppose the reasonable amendments that have been tabled. On victims, we are left with the two references that the Minister mentioned. The first is in schedule 1, which provides for victims being informed after a certificate has been granted. The second relates to the special tribunal and schedule 6, which ensures that the special prosecutor will make
“arrangements ... for giving information to victims”.
That is hardly an input for victims as regards having an opportunity to make a case on why the act carried out against them means that someone should not qualify for a certificate or for being granted a licence.
The day before the Committee began, I walked through the centre of town and I happened across a policeman who had once served in my council constituency in east Belfast. I suspect that he had information about the crime carried out against his cousin only because he was in the police. His cousin’s “crime” happened to be that he worked, as a civilian, in an Army base. The news bulletins indicated that the IRA murdered him because he worked where he did. They did not say that before he was murdered he was gratuitously tortured—his teeth and fingernails were pulled out.
Surely to goodness, the victim ought to have the opportunity to go to the special prosecutor and the tribunal and say, “This was not simply some terrorist act. It was a gratuitous act of torture against someone with whom these people happened to disagree.” There is no provision for that, although there is provision for giving information about the progress of the case—I use those cold words—through the tribunal and letting someone know after the event that the people guilty of the crime have had a certificate granted.
Once the certificate is granted, it stops the police questioning, searching, arresting, fingerprinting, taking statements from individuals and doing anything to build up a case against them. The stage at which the certificate is being applied for—when the blocking mechanism for any further investigation and use of investigatory tools by the police is being applied for—by the person concerned is when the Minister ought to give victims their opportunity.

Peter Robinson: Can my hon. Friend unravel the Minister’s comments for me? Repeatedly, to suggest that the Government have taken into account the views of victims, he has said, “But look, we have appointed a victims commissioner.” However, the Government are refusing, by rejecting the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down, to give a role to the very victims commissioner that the Minister prays in aid.

Sammy Wilson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which refers to one of the many contradictions. The Minister has made two arguments. I know that he has to argue for a shoddy Bill, but it is absurd to say that he cannot accept an amendment that would enable victims to have an early  input when the certificate is applied for because someone who has admitted their guilt by applying for a certificate might be wrongly dealt with, or the case might not proceed against them, and we would not want anyone to try to prevent them from getting a certificate.

Ben Wallace: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the absurdity is that a Walter Mitty character who walked in and tried to own up to something would not be eligible under clause 3(2) because he would not be eligible as, or seen as, an applicant? Under clause 3(3), two reasons for not granting a certificate are being either a still-active terrorist or a member of a specified organisation.

Sammy Wilson: The whole argument is absurd. We come to the second absurdity. I am sure that we will hear more of this when some amendments are moved later today or next week, but the Minister has been at pains to say that this could not be a Crown court, which is why these special arrangements have been made for a quasi-judicial tribunal, when it suits. It suits because the perpetrators of these crimes do not want to face the consequences and the effects of what they have done on the victims. When it suits, however, the rules of a Crown court apply, so the victim does not get the opportunity to make an impact assessment.
I do not know whether the policeman who stopped me in Belfast city centre would ever have wanted to relate the effect that the murder of his cousin had on his family, but he should at least have that opportunity.

Mark Durkan: Like other hon. Members who have tabled amendments, I am not entirely surprised that the Minister has refused the amendments, given the whole character of the background to the Bill. The fact is, however, that there is nothing more that the Minister or anyone other Government Member can say about victims that can be believed. That may be the only reason why I would not be minded to press some of the other amendments to a Division, because to do so would simply be to ask for serial dishonesty and serial insults against victims.
People use hollow words and hollow phrases about putting the victims at the centre of things and showing sensitivity to them, but judging by what we are being told in Committee today, it is almost as though we must be afraid of them—as though it would be dangerous to give the victims information. Suddenly the victims, not the perpetrators, are the danger. We are told that the Bill is necessary to ensure that we will have peace and that there will be no more victims. Yet we are told that the information cannot be given, because that may lead to there being more victims.
We are told that the Bill will seal the peace and take us somewhere over the rainbow where there will be no more paramilitaries and no more threats, yet we are also told that the victims cannot be considered because of all the paramilitarism, all the violence and all the ugly threat of violence that will be there in the future. The Government cannot have it both ways about whether or not the Bill will give us progress and a  brighter future—“Let us put violence behind us,” they say. They certainly cannot have it both ways in relation to victims.
The amendments are fairly innocuous—they may mean very little in practice to victims—but accepting them would at least be some minor concession to them. Yet the Government are flatly rejecting them. Yet again, not even a dimple has been allowed on a monstrosity as far as the victims are concerned. Instead, we get these weasel words, and no matter how warm the Minister or anyone else tries to make them, they simply do not wash with anyone.

David Hanson: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the inclusion in schedule 1 of the certification commissioner having a duty to respond to victims, the inclusion in schedule 6 of the special prosecutor having responsibility for victims, or the Government establishing the victims commissioner from 1 December are weasel words?

Mark Durkan: In a word, yes. The Government have refused to accept even a reference in the Bill to the victims commissioner that they created. That was a very simple test of whether the victims commissioner meant anything or counted for anything, but it was snuffed out.

Lembit Öpik: Is not our frustration due to the fact that although the Minister and the Government have repeatedly said that they are trying to be consensual and trying to listen to and to consult all sides, to date in the progress of the Bill there has not been a single example of their acceptance of feedback or even consensual advice coming from all sides of the Committee to modify the Bill? That makes us a little sceptical.

Mark Durkan: I take that point fully. We know what the Bill is a product of. The NIO-Sinn Fein pact thickens as the debate goes on and as events take place elsewhere: in a court in Belfast today, prosecutions were withdrawn in the public interest. No doubt, the special prosecutor will in future be able to withdraw prosecutions in the public interest.
I return to the question that the Minister asked me in his intervention. In addition to his point about the victims commissioner, he talked about the provisions elsewhere in the Bill on victims at least being contacted and informed of things. The Committee should remember that such information as might go to victims might be about anonymous people, because other provisions in the Bill provide that the Secretary of State can ensure that no information about the applicant goes anywhere. In addition, the Secretary of State will also be able to suppress any information about the crime—no doubt, on public interest grounds. Therefore, contact could be made with victims telling them that a certificate has been granted and telling them about the supposed progress of a case and an unnamed person, with no details being disclosed. That is what victims get—contact that tells them nothing and means nothing. That is all that we  are being offered. That is giving people stone for bread and it is an absolute insult to victims. It should be an insult to the self-respect of any Member of this House to go along with that pretence.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 16.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.
The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 16, Noes 12.

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Certification commissioner

Amendment proposed: No. 154, in schedule 1, page 15, line 28, leave out ‘is granted’ and insert ‘applies for’.—[Mr. Laurence Robertson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 16.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 155, in schedule 1, page 15, line 28, at end insert—
‘(1A)The commissioner shall consult, and have regard to the views of, the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner about arrangements to be made in fulfilling his duties under sub-paragraph (1).’.—[Mr. Laurence Robertson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 16.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 156, in schedule 1, page 15, line 28, at end insert—
‘(1A)It is the duty of the commissioner to secure that appropriate arrangements are made—
(a)to allow representations from victims about the case of each person who applies for a certificate of eligibility;
(b)to have regard to the views of victims about the case of each person who applied for a certificate of eligibility;
(c)to give the victims the reasons for his decision to grant or refuse a certificate of eligibility in every case.’.—[Mr. Laurence Robertson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 16.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That this schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.

Lady Hermon: I rise to argue that schedule 1 should not be included in the Bill, and I say so having listened with patience to the Minister’s explanation regarding the certification commissioner. He has not explained what criteria will be used to appoint the certification commissioner. I am particularly offended that we are being asked to vote through, in the schedule, the expenditure of public money. Paragraph 3 says:
“The Secretary of State is to pay such remuneration, fees and allowances as he considers appropriate to, or in respect of, the commissioner.”
I hope that hon. Members will join me in refusing to support the schedule, when we know that the certification commissioner will not enjoy public confidence in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that, when the Minister was given the opportunity under the previous set of amendments to improve the status of, and respect for, the certification commissioner, he did not take it. If the Bill makes it to the statute books, the Minister will remember that he was offered a prime opportunity to enhance the reputation and stature of the certification commissioner. The words “The Secretary of State should take the advice of” did not appear in the amendment; there was simply a duty to consult the Northern Ireland victims commissioner, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Chief Constable of the PSNI. The Minister has  single-handedly refused to accept that amendment. We are invited under schedule 1 to agree to the spending of public money on the pay, remuneration, fees and allowances of a certification commissioner.
As I say, the Minister has refused to enhance the status of that commissioner, however ghastly his job will be. The second reason why I am particularly aggrieved is that in an earlier exposition on the difference between the appeals commissioners and the certification commissioner the Minister himself, as anyone who checks Hansard will see, drew attention, perhaps inadvertently, to the fact that under clause 13
“the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of the commissioners, as a group, commanding widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland.”
Perhaps the Minister will explain that. For whatever reason, nowhere in the Bill—not in clause 2 and certainly not in the schedule—is there an indication that the certification commissioner should command widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland. Without any justification, the Minister differentiated one office holder, the certification commissioner, who will be handsomely paid public money, and the appeals commissioners, who clause 13 states should command widespread acceptance.
I cannot in conscience support schedule 1 unless the Minister stands up and explains why there are such significant differences. Even if he does, I shall vote against it and encourage others to do so. This is a heavy responsibility; we are to spend public money on someone who will never command widespread public acceptance in Northern Ireland. I ask Committee members to look into their consciences and support me in rejecting schedule 1.

David Hanson: Schedule 1 sets out the related appointments and duties of the certification commissioner, such as the terms of the establishment of the office of the commissioner, including tenure, remuneration, allowances, staff and premises and it gives the Secretary of State discretion in that respect. It also obliges the commissioner to produce an annual report to the House of Commons on his or her activities during the year. We have considered and discussed the amendments relating to victims and clause 2 has been accepted. The schedule also provides for information for victims and for the certification commissioner office’s role. The schedule includes a parliamentary disqualification for the holder of the post: no Member of Parliament, of the Northern Ireland Assembly, of the Scottish Parliament or of the Welsh Assembly can hold the post of certification commissioner.
I say to the hon. Member for North Down that I am happy to take questions, but we have covered the role of the certification commissioner in detail. I know that she wanted the work of the Committee to go further on the issue of victims and that we have had difficulties today in our discussion of that issue. However, if she votes against the schedule, she will vote against part 5 of the Bill, which is about giving information to  victims, as well as against the establishment of the post, the annual report to Parliament and the parliamentary disqualification. I am sure that, on reflection, she would not wish to do that.

Lady Hermon: As the Bill stands, the existence of the certification commissioner is without any limit in time. Unless the Bill is amended, for years to come, only when a person has a turn of conscience or the PSNI eventually gets sufficient information on them might they apply for a certificate of eligibility. In voting on the schedule, we may be voting the office of the certification commissioner through for years to come, which means that we shall have to pay for it for years to come. How much does the Minister estimate that it will cost the public Exchequer? How much are my constituents and the people of Northern Ireland being asked to pay for this wretched office?

David Hanson: As yet, we have not set a final salary for the post, nor have we established what back-up and support will be required, because that will depend on the work load. If the hon. Lady will allow me, however, I can give the example of the chief commissioner of the Human Rights Commission, whose current salary is in the region of £55,000 to £70,000 per annum. We anticipate that the chief certification commissioner’s salary will fall within that range, although we would be prepared to pay more for an exceptional candidate if necessary.
I envisage the commissioner being supported by a very small secretariat, which would potentially be headed by a former or current senior civil servant. It might also provide support for the appeals commissioners. In managing the progress of the post with the Secretary of State, I shall be looking to restrict costs as far as possible. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady some idea. We have left paragraphs 3 and 4 flexible to give the Secretary of State the necessary flexibility at the time of the appointment.
I give the Committee an undertaking that should the Bill complete its passage through both Houses and receive Royal Assent, I shall lay a ministerial statement before the House prior to the appointment of the certification commissioner. It will detail his annual budget, his salary and the cost of the support mechanism for him so that hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware of the cost of his post. I hope that that helps to meet the hon. Lady’s concerns.

Peter Robinson: I want to put it clearly on the record that although the Minister sought to score a point off the hon. Lady by suggesting that she would be voting against a small right for victims if she voted against the schedule, she and everybody who opposes it do so because its provisions are inadequate.

David Hanson: I am grateful for that intervention, but let me make it clear that I am not trying to score a point off the hon. Member for North Down; I am trying to handle the Committee in a way that achieves consensus and civilised discussion of the points as far as possible. I was simply pointing out that if the hon.  Lady votes against the schedule, having already considered clause 2 and put in place the certification commissioner’s role, she will be voting down the salary, the support mechanisms, the annual report to Parliament and the current registration and support for victims. I recognise that she does not feel that some of those provisions are adequate, but if she voted against the provisions on the basis of the simple concern that she initially raised about the salary, that would have implications for other aspects of the Bill. Should the schedule be defeated, the only provision for victims, the commissioner’s salary, the remuneration, the annual report to Parliament and the parliamentary disqualification would not be included, even though the Committee has already agreed to clause 2.

Jeremy Hunt: If the Minister is not prepared to accept the rejection of the schedule, is he prepared to concede anything at all in Committee to strengthen the rights of victims? In keeping with the pattern on previous days, he has been conciliatory in tone but has not been prepared to make a single concession when it comes down to it.

David Hanson: I have listened to the debate. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but he will be aware that there is a variety of parliamentary procedures for dealing with these matters, including Report, Third Reading and the House of Lords stage. The way in which I am approaching the Bill is to reflect on what is said in Committee and argue the case for what I believe. However, amendments might be forced on us in another place and we might have to reflect on them. I cannot say that the Bill that commences its parliamentary passage on First Reading will be the same Bill that completes the parliamentary process, but I am trying to argue the case for the Bill as drafted, and I believe that the schedule has an important purpose. It provides a salary and support staff, gives support to victims and provides for an annual report to be put before Parliament. That is why I commend it to the Committee.

Question put, That this schedule be the First schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 16, Noes 11.

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 3 - Certificates of eligibility

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 112, in clause 3, page 2, line 2, leave out ‘must’ and insert ‘may’.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 113, in clause 3, page 2, line 11, leave out
‘, and have had since before 1st November 2005,’.
Amendment No. 232, in clause 3, page 2, line 11, leave out ‘1st November 2005’ and insert ‘10th April 2004’.
Amendment No. 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, at end insert
‘and
(iii)that the applicant has not been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism since 10th April 1998.’.
Amendment No. 233, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, after ‘that’, insert
‘in the opinion of a senior police officer’.
Amendment No. 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, leave out ‘does not support’ and insert
‘has not at any time supported an organisation which is currently’.
Amendment No. 49, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
‘(aa)that that Commission established under section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (the commission) has reported that any organisation with which the applicant was associated has completed the decommissioning of its weapons and all other terrorist property;’.
Amendment No. 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, after ‘that’, insert
‘, in the view of the Police Service of Northern Ireland,’.
Amendment No. 50, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, at end insert
‘, or any other serious crime,’.
Amendment No. 235, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, at end insert
‘or any other “specified offences” as set out in Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003’.
Amendment No. 8, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, leave out
‘for a term of five years or more’.
Amendment No. 9, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e)that the Police Service of Northern Ireland believes that he will not pose a danger to the public.’.
Amendment No. 10, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e)that the applicant has not at any time supported an organisation which currently causes, by threat against a person or persons, such person or persons to leave Northern Ireland or to be in fear of returning to Northern Ireland.’.
Amendment No. 11, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e)that the applicant has not at any time supported an organisation which has been involved in any paramilitary, criminal or illegal activity since 1st December 2005.’.
Amendment No. 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e)that the applicant is not suspected of, or charged with or convicted of, an offence under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) (torture).’.
Amendment No. 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e)that the applicant has not at any time supported an organisation which the Independent Monitoring Commission cannot certify is maintaining a complete cessation of paramilitary and criminal activity.’.
Amendment No. 51, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e)that the Independent Monitoring Commission has stated in at least its two most recent reports that any organisation with which he was associated has not engaged in any serious criminal activity.’.
Amendment No. 54, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e)that the Independent Monitoring Commission has stated in at least its two most recent reports that any organisation with which he was associated has—
(i)ceased the practice of exiling; and
(ii)specifically and credibly stated that those who have been exiled from their homes are free to return without fear of intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress to themselves or their family.’.
Amendment No. 115, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e)that the applicant would not, in the opinion of a senior member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, be a danger to the public;
(f)that the applicant has not been engaged, or is likely to be engaged, in the indirect incitement or glorification of acts of terrorism;
(g)that the applicant is not concerned or likely to be concerned in any acts of criminality.’.
Amendment No. 169, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e)that the applicant in his application has disclosed all the offences committed by him to which this Act applies.’.
Amendment No. 48, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(3A)In making an application under subsection (1), the applicant must state—
(a)all offences he wishes to have considered under the provisions of this Act;
(b)the names of any organisations with which he was associated in the commission of those offences; and
(c)that he does not support any organisation that is proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 nor supports any acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.’.
Amendment No. 55, in clause 3, page 2, line 48, at end insert—
‘(d)the names of any organisations stated under subsection (3A)’.
Amendment No. 116, in clause 3, page 3, line 9, at end insert—
‘(7A)Before submitting a statement under subsection (2) (a) a senior member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland must consult and have regard to the views of—
(a)the Independent Monitoring Commission,
(b)the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner, and
(c)the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.’.
New clause 20—Entitlement to certificate and licence: further provisions—
‘(1)If a person who is on licence under section 9 is convicted of an offence which (or the conduct constituting which) might have been specified in a certificate of eligibility, but which was not specified in such a certificate, the Secretary of State shall revoke the person’s licence.
(2)Where a person has been granted a certificate of eligibility in which certain conduct, or certain offences, are specified, and is on licence, no further certificate may be granted to that person in respect of any other offences.’.

Laurence Robertson: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 112, 113, 115 and 116. Amendment No. 112 refers to the awarding of a certificate. It seeks to change “must award a certificate” to “may award a certificate”, which would give the commissioner a little flexibility as to whether to award that certificate to an applicant. The word “may” would be less prescriptive and would allow for greater discretion on the part of the commissioner than “must”, which makes the granting of a certificate binding in all circumstances if the applicant appears to qualify. Although the requirement would appear to have been met by the applicant, the commissioner should have some flexibility, especially as there is already an appeals procedure, which is detailed in clause 12. The amendment seeks to introduce that flexibility.
Amendment No. 113 relates to subsection (2)(a)(i) which refers to an applicant’s qualifying for a certificate if members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland have,
“and have had since before 1 November 2005, reasonable grounds for suspecting the applicant to be guilty of an offence”
to which the Bill applies, and if he
“would have been arrested for that offence before that date but for the fact that he was believed to be outside the United Kingdom”.
The reason for the amendment is that we were wondering why that date was chosen. What is significant about it? We do not believe in the Bill at all, but if it is to be introduced, it should have a sunset clause and I shall propose six months in a later amendment. If we are to go down this road at all it seems to us that the eligibility should run from the end date, rather than the arbitrary date of 1 November. Can the Minister explain why any date, and that date in particular, should have been chosen?
Amendment No. 115 would add to the list of conditions that have to be fulfilled before the applicant can be granted a licence. In addition to those in the Bill I propose that applicants should be granted a certificate only if they would not, in the opinion of a senior member of the PSNI, be a danger to the public, would not be engaged or likely to be engaged in the indirect incitement or glorification of acts of terrorism and would not be likely to be concerned in any aspects of criminality.
I shall briefly take each point in turn. It must surely be right that the applicant should not be seen by the police as a danger to the public. Indeed, clause 10 accepts that the licence should be awarded only if, in  the case of those serving life sentences, they are not seen as a danger to the public. Why is there that difference?
A number of processes are running in parallel, as I said on Second Reading. The emergency provisions are due to come to an end in 2007 or, at the latest, 2008. The Assembly elections are due in 2007 and the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will probably be up and running by 2007 in the Minister’s estimation. As the Bill has the potential to return a number of people who have been a menace to the streets of Northern Ireland back to those streets at a time when the emergency provisions could have been scrapped, we risk destabilising the streets if we are not careful. I do not think that that would be the Government’s intention.
Is it not important that the police do not see such people as a danger to members of the public, especially those whom they have previously terrorised? It seems a minimal provision and is consistent with the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, where the fourth condition to be satisfied before being eligible for release is that the person would not be a danger to the public.
I would not propose the incitement and glorification amendment other than for the sake of consistency with the Bills recently introduced by the Government. I would have thought that they would accept the amendment with open arms. After all, one terrorist is as bad as another. It is surely wrong to prohibit members of al-Qaeda from glorifying terrorism on the mainland while allowing IRA or UVF supporters to carry out the glorification of terrorism in Northern Ireland. We all said in early stages of this Bill and the Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill, which completed its passage through the Commons last week, that we want to see Northern Ireland returned to normality. Normality also means commonality in this respect, so in order to be keeping with other terrorist legislation perhaps it is important to prohibit inciting and glorifying terrorism in Northern Ireland.
The third aspect of the amendment is designed to ensure that the applicant is not and does not become engaged in criminality. We have heard over many years in this House and outside that Northern Ireland has become a different place since the Belfast agreement and that paramilitary activity has been reduced, as have murders and other forms of paramilitary violence. However, from the outset I would say that far too much paramilitary violence has continued since that agreement. I would also draw the Committee’s attention to the last IMC report, which states that the UVF remains “active, violent and ruthless”, that there are unreported acts of intimidation that are far more numerous than acts of violence and that the criminals are flexible and resilient.
The nature of the violence may have changed, but the mafia-style criminality remains. It is right that it cannot be allowed to continue on either side of the divide. There can be little doubt that republicans are involved in criminality, whether that is through protection rackets, bank robberies, extortion or whatever. There is certainly no doubt in my mind that  the so-called loyalist paramilitaries are deeply involved, too. On that basis, it is difficult to see how the amendment can be resisted. For Northern Ireland to return to normality, surely those re-entering society cannot be involved in any form of criminality but must have truly repented their sins and pledged to live decently and honestly in the future. Involvement in criminality can form no part of their future or that of Northern Ireland.
Finally, I shall address amendment No. 116. The Bill requires a senior police officer to write to the commissioner to state that he believes that an applicant qualifies to be dealt with under the scheme. The amendment would require the officer to consult the IMC, the Northern Ireland victims commissioner and the NIHRC before making that statement. The purpose of the amendment is, again, to keep the victim at the heart of the process, and is totally consistent with the other amendments that we have tabled.

Peter Robinson: There is a significant element of commonality between the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury and those to which I speak, which are amendments Nos. 3, and 6 to 13.
Amendment No. 3 would ensure that no one who has been involved in terrorism since 1998 can benefit from the scheme. According to the Government, the purpose of the scheme is to resolve and put a line under the past, which is why they are prepared to give what amounts to an amnesty for pre-1998 offences. The very fact that offences took place after that date indicates that matters are not in the past as far as the offenders are concerned—that even after the Belfast Agreement, they were still doing what they do best. Clearly, such people should not benefit from the scheme. Clean hands post-1998 is not an unreasonable standard to expect people to meet. Under the Bill, effectively, crimes post-1998 are not eligible for benefit from either the scheme or the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, so criminals post-1998 should not be eligible either.
The purpose of amendment No. 6—there is some similarity between amendments Nos. 6 and 11—is to link the applicant’s ability to benefit from the scheme to the behaviour of the paramilitary organisation for which they committed the offence, rather than the applicant’s—unprovable—thoughts. Applicants will benefit from the provisions of this legislation because of the status and bargaining power of the paramilitary organisation and should therefore be accountable for the subsequent acts of the organisation.
There are advantages to our proposal from the Government’s point of view. It would provide a powerful incentive for organisations not to get involved in paramilitary, criminal or terrorist activity, and it will be difficult to link an individual with a particular offence or behaviour. The scheme is being introduced because the paramilitary organisation did a deal with the Government, so its continuation should depend on it keeping its part of that deal. Without such a link, terrorists could permanently benefit from a short-term so-called peace.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that language used in clause 6 is not replicated in clause 3. Clause 6 uses the wording
“the person has at any time supported an organisation that ... is currently a specified organisation.”
It is precisely the Government’s language there that we are attempting to insert into clause 3, as they would never be able to prove
“that the applicant does not support a specified organisation”
which is the wording in clause 3. It is much easier to make an assessment of the organisation than of the individual. I urge the Government to consider that matter, and the Committee to vote accordingly.
People should not be able to benefit if the organisation with which they are associated still engages in the same activities as in the past. Why on earth would we want to allow people to apply for and get a certificate if the organisation of which they have been a part, and on whose behalf they have committed acts of terrorism, is still out there and carrying out that kind of activity? Under clause 3, they can do that. If the Government had used the same language as in clause 6, they could not; the activities of the organisation would have applied against the person. If the Bill is an attempt to draw a line under the past, any activity that is demonstrably not in the past should be taken into account. I remind the Minister that the Government made this mistake in 1998; I trust that they will not make the same mistake again on this occasion.
The purpose of amendment No. 7 is to make the condition that it addresses a police judgment, rather than a judgment of the Government or a Government appointee. No person or organisation would be better placed than the police to determine that an applicant
“is not concerned or likely to be concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.
It adds to the Bill a recognition that the best body to make that judgment is the PSNI, rather than the Government or a Government appointee. I trust that that is such common sense that even the Government might be able to take it on board.
With amendment No. 9, we begin to list a number of conditions that the commissioner must meet in respect of issuing a certificate. The only previous requirements that are laid down in the legislation could, in effect, be met by anybody, no matter what the circumstances prevailing were. Amendments Nos. 9 to 13 make a number of further requirements.
Amendment No. 9 would ensure that people who are a danger to the public do not benefit from the scheme. Elsewhere in the Bill, the Government have that as a requirement. It seems to me to be such a natural factor in the current context that I am surprised that the Government might be considering that somebody who is a danger to the public should benefit from the scheme. I would have thought that the Government would not have to stretch too far to accept the principle of the amendment. It would be an extraordinary position for the Government to adopt if they recognised that somebody was a danger to the public but they also ensured that they did not spend a  day in prison for their crimes. Clearly, the Government must make this a condition in respect of the issuing of eligibility certificates.
Amendment No. 10 is important, and I am sure that the Committee will want to study it in some detail. It is the exiles amendment. It would make sure that there is a linkage between any organisation benefiting from this scheme and how it treats those whom it has, through fear, exiled and whom it does not allow to return to Northern Ireland. Why should people who have committed the most heinous crimes be allowed by the Government to return to Northern Ireland, when the organisation of which they are a part will not allow those who have stood in their way to return to Northern Ireland? It is unacceptable for such applicants to benefit from the scheme in such circumstances when people still do not feel able to return home. A real test of the true nature of the state of normality or peace is whether those who have been exiled are allowed to return home, and feel that they can do so.
The purpose of our amendment is to link clearly the attitude of organisations to exiles and the extent to which their members who have committed offences can benefit from the provisions of the Bill. Without this change there can be no justification for allowing terrorists to return home when their victims cannot. It would be absurd to allow those who have fled a proper and legal judicial system to return home free of the normal legal system, when those who have been exiled as a result of a paramilitary style of justice are not safe to return.
Amendment No. 12 deals with torture and breaches of the European convention on human rights. I touched on that matter on Second Reading. I return to it because it is vital that the Government address it. If they do not do so in this Committee, on Report or in another House, it will be addressed in the courts. They can be certain about that.
This is a responsibility that the Government cannot dodge. They are bound by conventions. They have signed up to conventions, for instance the United Nations convention against torture, article 4 of which states:
“Each state party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.”
The United Kingdom is one such state party. So it is not just a case of having brought somebody before a quasi-judicial panel; it is a requirement to have the offences punished and for there to be penalties as a result of such a court case.
The Government have signed up to that convention and the European convention on human rights, article 3 of which, on the prohibition of torture, states:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 13 makes it clear that:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
It is clear from both conventions that the Government have signed up to a requirement not only not to be involved in torture themselves, but to punish  anybody who is and to ensure that penalties arise. That is the undertaking that the Government have given in those conventions. They will have to face up to their duties under those conventions and ensure that no one who has committed torture or who has killed someone following torture is allowed to benefit from this legislation. The commissioner, at the first stage of the process, should weed out any such cases and ensure that the people involved do not benefit. If they were to benefit, the Government would be in violation of their commitments given under those conventions.
The purpose of amendment No. 13 is to introduce a role for the IMC. By and large, in the past, the Government have examined their legislative responsibility. However, when it comes to whether an organisation is still involved in terrorist activity, the Secretary of State says publicly, “Well, I have to make a judgment in the round”—in some cases even going before the courts to do so. I think that we can remember the case fairly well where the Minister, even though there had been acts of terrorism, was prepared to say, “In the round, I have to accept that the ceasefire still holds”.
The reality is that the Government take their decisions for political reasons. They set up, and gave their support to, the IMC. They gave it an important role: to assess and to monitor the activities of paramilitary organisations. As a result of IMC reports the Government have imposed sanctions on various paramilitary organisations. Even within the political process, the Government place great emphasis on its reports.
How many times have we heard during the past few weeks the importance of the IMC report next January? The Government are inclined to believe that a good IMC report would indicate that peace and normality exist in Northern Ireland and that that should be the test. The Government set the test of whether there is normality by the judgment of the IMC. What we are saying, under the amendment, is so be it. We would rather have the IMC’s judgment on such matters than the Government’s; the IMC would certainly be much more independent.
As the provisions are exceptional, it would not be unreasonable to disqualify applicants on the basis that the organisation with which they were associated was continuing to engage in illegal activity. In my view, the ideal body to make such a judgment would be the IMC. The Minister may well respond that thus far the IMC’s role has been confined to making recommendations, and that what we are suggesting is to give it a decision-making role. That is no bad thing; it would probably make better decisions than the Government, as far as such matters are concerned. Certainly, if the Government had taken the IMC’s recommendations, we might be in a better position today. It has made recommendations that the Government have not been prepared to carry through; indeed, the Government have acted in defiance of the IMC’s recommendations.
Our amendment would give paramilitary organisations an additional incentive to ensure that their illegal activity did not continue. That is surely something that the Government want. If such a provision had been included in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, the political process to date might have been very different. We are talking about the opportunity to ensure that paramilitarism is over, by making sure that a paramilitary organisation cannot cosy up to the Government and make another wee deal on the side with them to get by in spite of its behaviour. It would be foolish to ignore such an opportunity.
In fairness to the Government, it took them two or three weeks to get over the Northern bank robbery of £26.5 million and the McCartney killing, but the fact that they got over those events in a few weeks shows just how little those kind of terrorist events affect the Government’s thinking, because they are considering other issues. I would far rather a body such as the IMC took such decisions, and I would rather the commissioner relied on them, than on politically motivated Ministers.

Lorely Burt: I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 48 to 51, and 54 and 55. Unlike the previous set of amendments, this group contains some amendments about which my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and I have reservations, so although we will listen carefully to the points put forward by other hon. Members, we may request a separate vote on one or more amendments.
I begin with amendment No. 48. Under the clause, a person wishing to avail themselves of the provisions must first make an application to the certification commissioner for a certificate of eligibility. As the Bill stands, the PSNI must tell the commissioner if there are grounds for suspecting that the applicant was guilty of an offence, yet the applicant does not have to take the initiative to admit to anything that they have done, and does not even have to admit to supporting any organisation.
The Government have argued that the Bill is about ensuring closure—given the criticism that I have received for using that expression, I use it tentatively—but how can the Bill ensure that, if those who have committed acts of terrorist violence are not willing to come forward and admit what they have done?
Under amendment No. 48, the applicant would have to state all the offences that he wishes to have considered in his application. He would also have to state which organisation he was associated with. That is important, as under subsection (3) the commissioner must satisfy himself that an applicant does not support a specified organisation. Such a declaration would aid the commissioner in making that decision.
The final part of the amendment requires the applicant to state that he does not support a proscribed organisation or any acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. We have used the term proscribed organisations rather than specified organisations because it is important for  us to know that the people who will avail themselves of the scheme do not support terrorist organisations in any shape or form, whether on ceasefire or not.

Lady Hermon: I do not want to put the hon. Lady off her stride, but amendment No. 48 tabled in her name and that of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who we miss this afternoon, states:
“In making an application under subsection (1), the applicant must state—
(a)all the offences he wishes to have considered under the provisions of the Act”.
The hon. Lady then explained that the purpose of the amendment is to extract the truth. Surely the truth should oblige the applicant to disclose not only those offences to which he wants to admit, but everything horrible—X, Y and Z—that he had done. That is what we want. If that is the intention, the wording of the amendment needs to be tighter.

Lorely Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that point. It is a matter to which I shall return after I have sought further clarification. Her argument was good; it concerned all offences, as opposed to terrorist offences under the Bill. With her permission, I shall come back to it at a later stage.
It is important not only that the commissioner is satisfied that an applicant does not support specified organisations or will not become involved in terrorism, but that he or she is specifically willing to make such a statement.
Amendment No. 49 is linked to amendment No. 48 in so far as it relates to the organisation with which a person was associated. Although it is important to establish that a person does not support an organisation that is not on ceasefire, it is also important that the organisation with which the person was associated has demonstrated that it has fulfilled its commitments under the Good Friday agreement and has decommissioned its weapons. Although the Bill will deal with individuals, it is important to remember that those individuals carried out terrible acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland in the name of certain organisations. The behaviour of those organisations should also be considered.
Turning to amendment No. 50, under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, the conditions that were attached to the licences under which prisoners were released were drawn rather narrowly. They related specifically to the non-support of a specified organisation—not becoming involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, and, in the case of a life prisoner, that the person is not a danger to the public. Given the direct link between paramilitary organisations and organised crime in Northern Ireland, it is vital that the commissioner is satisfied not only that the person who avails himself of the scheme is not involved in terrorism, but that he will not become involved in serious crime.
Amendment No. 51 is connected to amendment No. 50. As with amendment No. 49, it is important that not only the actions of the individual but the behaviour of the organisation with which he was associated should come under scrutiny. All paramilitary violence constitutes a threat to democracy and the rule of law, so it makes sense to link participation in the scheme with non-participation in organised crime.
The purpose of amendment No. 54 is to link the return of fugitives with the return of people who have been exiled from Northern Ireland. Several thousand people have been driven from their homes by loyalist and republican paramilitaries, not only during the troubles but after the signing of the Good Friday agreement. Although some of those who have been exiled may have been petty criminals, others may simply have crossed the local paramilitary godfathers. Their plight is one of the forgotten aspects of the peace process.
The matter was studied in 2000 by the Northern Ireland Committee, which noted the difficulties in quantifying the scale of the problem, as many victims did not report intimidation through fear. Many exiles have struggled to integrate into new communities, and they have been denied the opportunity to return home to attend family events such as weddings and funerals. It would be wrong to allow some paramilitaries to return to their homes in safety while those exiled by the relevant paramilitary organisation are denied the opportunity. Certification must be linked to a positive report by the IMC.

Lady Hermon: People have been exiled in terrible circumstances in Northern Ireland, often with guns to their heads or threats to their families. How many of them do the hon. Lady and her colleagues believe wish to come back to Northern Ireland?

Lorely Burt: That is a perceptive question, but I do not know the answer. However, it is important to establish the principle. As well as considering those who have been involved in acts of terrorism, we should consider the exiles. We should give equal consideration to both groups.
Amendment No. 55 would ensure that when someone states that he or she has been a supporter of an organisation, the name of that organisation is published on the certificate of eligibility. It is a simple amendment to ensure that everyone knows where they stand and whether applications are affected by the behaviour of the various organisations.

Lady Hermon: I have about 20 minutes before the lights are turned out on the Committee.

Sammy Wilson: Is the hon. Lady going to put the lights out?

Lady Hermon: The hon. Member for East Antrim is teasing me, but I never put the lights out. I shall ignore him.

Sammy Wilson: Why not? The Minister does.

Lady Hermon: I have great difficulty with the clause. It is pivotal to the Bill; it revolves around certificates of eligibility. The amendment to which I have added my name would make changes to the clause, but they will not make the clause acceptable.
I speak in support of the amendments tabled by the official Opposition. The new party leader is now in place, and I am glad that all Conservative members of the Committee are sober enough after the celebrations to be present today—they have made a valuable contribution. It is interesting that some newer Members felt confident enough to speak; I appreciate that. Not to live in Northern Ireland and yet speak for Northern Ireland is always to be welcomed. I might not agree with what is said, but it is to be welcomed.
I shall speak to amendments Nos. 232, 233, 235 and 169. Clause 3 concerns me greatly because of its wording and its inconsistencies. As it stands, it is so inherently discriminatory between different classes of applicants that it would not withstand challenge in the courts on the grounds of its incompatibility with the European convention on human rights. However, we shall deal with that in detail on another occasion.
In the meantime, I support amendments Nos. 112 and 113. Their purpose is to give the certification commissioner discretion rather than a duty to issue a certificate of eligibility if the conditions set out in detail in clause 3—as I said, they are inconsistent—are met. The opening words of clause 3 read:
“Where an application is made to the certification commissioner for a certificate of eligibility, the commissioner must issue a certificate”.
I want the word “must” to be changed so that there is discretion instead of a duty, and I say that for several reasons. Primarily, we must focus again on the need for justice and truth—the two things that this ghastly process denies survivors and victims in Northern Ireland. I would like someone who makes an application to the certification commissioner to have to express some remorse.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East made an interesting contribution on applicants who have committed the most horrendous acts of torture on other human beings in the name of some political cause or their religion, or because the other person was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The certification commissioner should have discretion to take into account expressions of remorse by a defendant who, in their youth or under orders from whatever higher command they belonged to, took the life of another human being.
The other reason why I would like the commissioner to have discretion rather than a duty, and why I support amendments Nos. 112 and 113, is that we have a group of individuals who are referred to as the disappeared. Most regrettably, almost all are young men, although Jean McConville is one of the women who were disappeared and murdered by the IRA 20 or 30 years ago. The bodies of those people have never been recovered, and their families have never had the  opportunity to give them a Christian burial or to achieve closure, in the proper sense, for the loss of their loved ones.
It grieves me to think that those who are responsible for the murders of the disappeared—those almost exclusively Catholic, nationalist young men who were murdered by the IRA and buried somewhere—could make an application outside or inside the Northern Ireland jurisdiction and admit that they were responsible for one of those murders, but never have to disclose where the remains lie. I would therefore like discretion to be built in so that the certification commissioner could take into account issues such as remorse and details about recovering the bodies of the disappeared. Unless those responsible for murders committed 20 or 30 years ago come along and say, “Hands up, I did it. I’m responsible,” we will never recover those bodies.
None of those who disappeared in that time are constituents of mine, but one of the most poignant letters that I have ever received was from a lady in Crossmaglen whose husband was disappeared 23 years ago. I do not want those victims and families forgotten in the process that the Minister and the Government are seeking to drive through the Committee. I therefore fully support the idea that the certification commissioner—if and when we have one—should have discretion rather than a duty, so that he has the flexibility to take into account important principles such as expressions of remorse and the recovery of the bodies of the disappeared.
Amendment No. 169—I am taking the amendments slightly out of order—is important. It is similar, but not identical, to the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt). The amendment would impose a positive duty on the applicant to provide full and proper disclosure of all their wickedness—not only, as I said to the hon. Lady in an intervention, to point out those offences to which he, or possibly she, wants to confess, but to extract a certificate of eligibility.

Lorely Burt: I have consulted on the hon. Lady’s previous question. We wanted the amendment to include the words “serious crimes”, as we do not believe it appropriate for an individual’s every parking ticket, fine or small misdemeanour to be included. The precise definition of a serious crime is, however, open to interpretation.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification. Amendment No. 169 says
“that the applicant in his application has disclosed all the offences committed by him to which this Act applies.”
The amendment makes it quite clear that it applies not to parking tickets or to minor offences, but to all the offences committed by him to which the Act applies. The applicant cannot therefore pick and mix and have amnesia about very serious offences to extract a certificate of eligibility from the certification commissioner for a particular offence.
The amendment would thus ensure that the process became a truth process, which is the one thing that has been denied in the Minister’s proposal—rather, it is  the Government’s; I should not blame him alone—to offer amnesty without truth, which I cannot in conscience support.

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady speaks most eloquently about her concerns for the victims. Given that the Government have decided to vote down every amendment that has been pressed so far, does she agree that the most appropriate way for the Committee to proceed before we return next week is for the Minister to table amendments that genuinely take into account the concerns for the victims that have been expressed on both sides of the Committee?

Lady Hermon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very valuable contribution. I do hope that the Minister takes home copies of Hansard, which I think will be available, and reflects on the wise advice from a young head, if I may say so. This is ghastly, hideous legislation, but there are opportunities to make it a little more acceptable, which some of us are trying to do. It is soul-destroying and utterly dispiriting for the Minister to reject every amendment out of hand. He is responsible for building confidence in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, so it therefore behoves him to improve the Bill in a way that offers truth and some fairness to those who have lost their loved ones. As it stands, this legislation simply does not do that.
Amendment No. 233 would remove from the commissioner the power to determine whether a person supports a specified organisation. Instead, it would permit members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary, to determine whether an individual is a member of a specified organisation. Committee members need to be aware of the difference between proscribed and specified organisations. I am sure the Minister will explain that and justify why only those who are not members of specified organisations will benefit from the provision in clause 3.
As the Minister has indicated that he will not accept a panel of three, and there will be one certification commissioner, I wish to remove from the commissioner the determination of whether an applicant is supporting a specified organisation, because that would remove any possibility of external or political pressure being brought to bear on that individual. It would also make a significant improvement to the Bill. I hope that other Committee members will support my amendment.

Mark Durkan: Committee members were made some promises about the time, which might be one of the few promises or assurances that end up being honoured during the proceedings.
I want to pick up some points that hon. Members made in respect of their amendments. I would not be comfortable supporting all the amendments, for various reasons that I shall not rehearse. A number of amendments would mire the PSNI in the “Twilight Zone” procedures provided for under the Bill. We should not mire it in such dubious procedures,because that could implicate it in things that it would prefer not to be implicated in. It might at least implicate the PSNI in stages that it would prefer not to be implicated in, given that it might have to perform other functions in front of the special tribunal. I have not consulted the police service on that, but I would not be content to support the amendments unless I knew that the people speaking on behalf of the police service were content with such amendments and implications.
The hon. Member for North Down has tabled amendments that would bring the whole truth and the quest for truth into the Bill. Like her, my party has tried to do that and we are, with some of our amendments, trying to open up a whole-truth window, partly because a number of victims’ groups have told us that they would like that. Even though that does not fit well with the Bill, we are trying to do it. Our amendments, which will be dealt with subsequently, might more adequately do that.
We would be more inclined to support the Liberal Democrat amendments, rather than most of the other amendments, because they are more consistent with some of what we said earlier and what we will say in relation to later clauses.
Some DUP amendments, for understandable reasons, would ensure that people could not use the dateline in the Bill to get away with all sorts of things and get the absolution that the new procedures offer, while—post dateline—having been up to their necks in and supportive of all sorts of things. My only problem is with the terms in which those amendments are drafted, which would mean that people could be cut off from accessing the benefits just for having supported an organisation at any time, even though they might well and truly have cut their links and everybody might fully accept that.
There are people involved with paramilitary groups whom everybody accepts have cut their links absolutely, and have indeed performed a valuable public service having done so. Such people would be precluded, and it would be wrong if they were targeted. I know that such people are not the primary or intentional target of the amendments, but they would be co-casualties, so we are not comfortable supporting those proposals.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Coaker.]

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Four o’clock till Tuesday 13 December at half-past Ten o’clock.